In recent years much debate has been around whether Earth’s rising temperatures, whether it is due to mainly human influences or natural influences. So a question is asked has climate change been increased primarily due to human actions, or has it been increased from natural influences? This topic is a fiery debate in our modern societies, as many still believe climate change was kickstarted from physical factors such as Volcanic activity, as in the past this activity has increased greenhouse gases. Others think human influences such as burning coal, have been the higher release of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere.

It hasn’t been until recent years that people have given much attention to climate change. Scientists have become more drastically worried about it, publicly presenting what they believe is happening to our climate, and what will inevitably happen if we continue to ignore it. Even politicians use the issue to get more attention to their campaigns, or office, and to make themselves look better as a candidate to voters. Those who believe that climate change has been perpetuated by “natural influences” use pathos, more emotion-based reasoning. These people use fundamentalism, and an emotion-based appeal to convince their audience. The other side of the spectrum is people who believe climate change is from human factors will try to appeal to the audience through credibility and logic. They cite facts, and real research from well-known scientific groups have studied climate change.

In recent years there has been a significant shift in opinion about climate change, some people are for or against. In Caroline Gregoire’s Huffington Post article “Why some conservatives can’t accept that climate change is real” while is biased towards one group of people, does argue that people who don’t believe that climate change is real use pathos, trying to convince the audience through emotion. She presents the argument in her article by using quick catch lines that capture the reader’s attention such as “They seek out information that confirms their beliefs — and ignore anything that challenges them.” She then goes on to explain, “At the core of climate change denial is the brain’s confirmation bias — a natural tendency to seek and interpret facts in a way that confirms our pre-existing beliefs.” She argues that people who hold this belief don’t act upon logic but are acting on their previous knowledge. Gregoire also appeals to the reader’s emotional side as at the top she shows a picture of a depressing looking polar bear standing on small broken pieces of ice.

The U.S. Global change research program produced a visual chart in 2009, to help the audience visualize how much human activities has contributed to Earth’s temperature rising comparatively to Natural Sources. This chart tries to convince the audience that the observed human effect on climate change has increased the overall temperature of the Earth, also by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and the continual use of nonrenewable energies has been the sole reason climate change has gotten worse over the past two hundred years. The visual part of the chart it is brightly colored which catches the reader’s attention, once the graph has done that, it is then able to establish credibility through ethos, as right above it is the name of the renowned research program that developed this chart, the “U.S Global Change Research Program.” The graph in itself is simple but yet easy to understand, which serves as a benefit because it’s better to have a chart that more of their audience can read easily.

The NASA Earth Observatory published an online article, on June 3rd, 2010, to explain the audience that while there are natural influences such as Volcanoes emitting gases into the atmosphere, the amount that natural forces contribute to climate change is not consistent to how many humans have added to climate change. NASA creates ethos by itself as it is a well-known credible science program. By establishing logos, which is when they feature charts which that show scientific results, which add to their claim that human factors have been the most contributing to climate change. Through the use of diagrams and charts help persuade the audience to their opinion through pathos.

Every source argues their differing opinions on whether human actions contribute to climate change, compared with natural influences. Through persuasion of the audience with establishing their credibility, and appealing to the audiences logical side by using scientific results, from popular scientific programs. But also by calling to the audience’s emotional side when talking about how climate change is not only caused by humans, and isn’t a big deal, using “emotion-based decision process.” All three sources are fruitful in their arguments, and present their points of view on climate change effectively. In my opinion, I felt that the Huffington Post article convinced me more as I thought that their column was more comfortable to read, and didn’t illustrate complicated charts along with their report. Plus she supported her argument from actual quotes she has gotten from members in government who claim climate change isn’t real.
Works Cited